Quotes below are from Gary North, the Dominion Covenant. Footnotes deleted.
[My comments in bolded brackets]
The Role of the Masses
—<Quote begins>—
Man must direct the evolutionary process, but the majority of men will not face up to their responsibilities in this respect. He does not elaborate, but the implication is clear enough: a minority of men, who will face up to their responsibilities for directing the evolutionary process, must step in and provide leadership.
[How noble and self-sacrificing of Our Superiors.]
In a later book, Dobzhansky discusses the role of the masses. The masses exist in order to provide the raw numbers of humans out of whom will arise the elite. ‘Are the multitudes supererogatory? They may seem so, in view of the fact that the intellectual and spiritual advances are chiefly the works of elites. To a large extent, they are due to an even smaller minority of individuals of genius. The destiny of a vast majority of humans is death and oblivion. Does this majority play any role in the evolutionary advancement of humanity?” He admits that the elites need the majority if they themselves are to survive. And the masses provide more than mere “manure in the soil in which are to grow the gorgeous flowers of the elite culture. Only a small fraction of those who try to scale the heights of human achievement arrive anywhere close to the summit. It is imperative that there be a multitude of climbers. Otherwise the summit may not be reached by anybody. The individually lost and forgotten multitudes have not lived in vain, provided they, too, made the effort to climb.” It is mankind, a collective whole, that is the focus of his concern, but it is obvious that the elite members are the directing geniuses of the progress of man, as mankind struggles to reach the summit, whatever that may be. “Man is able, or soon will be able, to control his environments successfully. Extinction of mankind could occur only through some suicidal madness, such as an atomic war, or through a cosmic catastrophe.” Man, the directing god of evolution, need fear only himself, the new cosmic sovereign, or else some totally impersonal event, such as a supernova. Insofar as personalism reigns, man is sovereign.
—<Quote ends>—
[Well, certain men get to be sovereign over other men. And when I say sovereign, I don’t mean the limited sovereignty of a father, or a judge, or a priest, or a scientist, or a businessman hemmed in by Divine Law. I mean true sovereignty, the ability to do what he wills, merely because he wills it.
- Why yes, that man is a woman, because the State says so.
- Why yes, you can imprison that psychologist because he refuses to acknowledge this Government Truth.
- Yes, you can imprison that man because he is privately using that drug, regardless of the distinct lack of any Biblical prohibition of it.
- Yes, you can take off 40% – or more – of what a man earns, right off the top, because a majority vote justifies that theft.
- Of course, the moronic Christian superstition of equality before the law has no place in a truly secular and enlightened society. The right sort of people get legal favours, and the wrong sort of people are to be legally crippled.
- Naturally, a State hospital can fire that doctor because he fails to uphold the State Ideology of the legitimacy of abortions, and naturally refuses to do so himself.
(And, due to its Love of the People — certainly not due to the the thirst for power! — ALL hospitals are to be STATE hospitals. )”
Such sin-fuelled and power-hungry Masters may be desirable for Our Betters, even for those crying out for gods they can see and touch, and therefore truly trust in. But it’s worthless for Christians, who desire to live free under God’s reign and authority… and have no time for the idolatry of the Baals, the political Lords of the day.]
Copernicus, and Hell as the Centre of Reality
—<Quote begins>—
Central to the task of eliminating God from the universe and time were two important intellectual developments. The first was the extension of space. The second was the extension of time, forward and backward. The late-medieval and early modern world saw the shattering of the pre-modern world’s conception of the size of the universe. One of the standard arguments found in textbook accounts of the history of science is that when Copernicus broke the spell of the older Ptolemaic universe, which had hypothesized the sun and heavenly bodies circling the earth, he somehow diminished the significance of man. Astronomer William Saslaw repeats this standard analysis in a 1972 essay. He writes, “by diminishing the earth, Copernicus also diminished our own importance to the Universe.” This so-called diminishing of man was accompanied by the rise of humanism, and in fact Copernicus’ theory was basic to humanism’s growth. A diminished view of man somehow led to an elevated view of man. How was this possible?
One lucid answer has been provided by Arthur O. Lovejoy, the historian of ideas. He argued that the traditional account of the significance of Copernicus’ theory has been erroneous. It has misunderstood the place of the earth in the medieval cosmology. “It has often been said that the older picture of the world in space was peculiarly fitted to give man a high sense of his own importance and dignity; and some modern writers have made much of this supposed implication of pre-Copernican astronomy. Man occupied, we are told, the central place in the universe, and round the planet of his habitation all the vast, unpeopled spheres obsequiously revolved. But the actual tendency of the geocentric system was, for the medieval mind, precisely the opposite. For the centre of the world was not a position of honor; it was rather the place farthest removed from the Empyrean, the bottom of the creation, to which its dregs and baser elements sank. The actual centre, indeed, was Hell; in the spatial sense the medieval world was literally diabolocentric. And the whole sublunary region was, of course, incomparably inferior to the resplendent and incorruptible heavens above the moon…. It is sufficiently evident from such passages that the geocentric cosmography served rather for man’s humiliation than for his exaltation, and that Copernicanism was opposed partly on the ground that it assigned too dignified and lofty a position to his dwelling-place.” To break the intellectual hold of the older medieval conception of the universe, and man’s place on a cursed earth, the humanists found it convenient to promote Copernicus’ cosmography. The basic step in creating a new, autonomous universe did not reduce the cosmological significance of man, for it was a key to establishing the centuries-long intellectual process of shoving God out of the universe. It was necessary to reduce God’s significance in order to give to mankind the monopoly of cosmological significance. The infinite universe could be substituted for the once-central earth as the arena of man’s drama. But an impersonal universe, however large, cannot provide meaning. Man, therefore, can now become the source of meaning in (and for) the universe, by virtue of his exclusive claim to cosmic personalism – the only source of personal purpose in this infinite universe. And this modern universe does not relegate man to the pit of sin and spiritual warfare, as the medieval view of the universe had done.
What the Copernican revolution did for man’s sense of autonomy and monopoly of power within the spatial dimension, Darwin’s revolution did for man’s sense of temporal autonomy. An analogous error in the textbook accounts of the history of science and the history of modern thought is that Darwin made man the descendant of apes (or pre-apes). This supposedly debased man’s view of himself and his importance in history. The opposite is the case. What Darwin did was to rescue rebellious Western man from Christianity’s theology of moral transgression and its doctrine of eternal doom.
—<Quote ends>—
[The Greeks got it wrong again: it is the Throne of God that is the centre of creation: not hell, not the lake of fire.]
I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 8:11-12, English Standard VErsion
Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness. These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.
II Peter 2:15-17, English Standard Version
And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Revelation 20:22-27, English Standard Version
[Heaven – even the New Jerusalem – stands at the centre of Creation. Outer Darkness/Hell is far from the centre. And the Lake of Fire is excluded from the New Creation: not even at the margins of the Kingdom of God, but completely cut off from truth and light and hope and love and meaning.
Forever.
Darwin’s escape from reality lead only to the destruction and death of the West, via murder, lawlessness/tyranny (anarcho-tyranny), and madness.]
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:24-32, English Standard Version
[Not just men, but entire societies have chosen madness and tyranny, poverty and death before.
Christians are not to walk down that road to hell.
Nor any other road that despised God, His Commandments, or His salvation. Including the more religiously-acceptable roads such as pride, or covetousness, or rebelliousness. Even the small, soft roads to hell like gluttony or cowardliness or faithlessness or gossip or boastfulness or the way of the lazy, worthless, passive servant .
Gently declining and comfortable roads to the Lake of Fire serves Satan’s hate-full goals, as surely as just leaping off a cliff into the flames.
But there is a way to repentance and life, a way that Darwin explicitly denies.
For obvious reasons.]
—<Quote begins>—
A superb analysis of the impact Darwinian thought had on late-nineteenth-century religious thought was presented by Rev. James Maurice Wilson, Canon of Worcester, in a 1925 essay, “The Religious Effect of the Idea of Evolution.” Man became the focal point of religion, for “it is only in the study of man’s nature that we can hope to find a clue to God’s Purpose in Creation. Herein lies, as I think, the great service that the idea of evolution is rendering to theology.” Darwin freed man from the biblical God, concluded Rev. Wilson, and so did his contemporaries. “The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and obvious result of this acceptance was that we were compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic, as it had long been believed to be. We were compelled to regard that story as a primitive attempt to account for the presence of sin and evil in the world…. But now, in the light of the fact of evolution, the Fall, as a historic event, already questioned on other grounds, was excluded and denied by science.” Understandably, the rejection of the doctrine of the ethical rebellion of man against God, at a particular point in human history, necessarily transformed that generation’s interpretation of Christianity. “The abandonment of the belief in a historic ‘Fall’ of a primeval pair of human beings has removed one of the great obstacles to the acceptance by our generation of the Christian Faith which had required that belief. Yet taken by itself it certainly tends to create, as well as to remove, a difficulty. For if there was no historic Fall, what becomes of the Redemption, the Salvation through Christ, which the universal experience of Christendom proves incontestably to be fact? How does Jesus save His people from their sins? He makes men better.” Man now becomes a co-worker with a vague, undefinable God who does not judge. “It is the sins of the world and our sins that He who died on the Cross is taking away, by making us better. Salvation is not then thought of as an escape from hell; but as a lifting us all out from living lives unworthy of us. Religion so conceived is not the art of winning heaven, but the effort to become better and to work with God.”
—<Quote ends>—
[Evil men do not want to be condemned.
They want to be made better.: more powerful, more controlling, more intelligent.
Jesus must serve them, so they gain more power… and not that their comprehensively death-loving nature be renounced and removed.
But Christ and His Law-Word is King. Not evil men and their lawless words.]
—<Quote begins>—
Man now becomes part of God, who in turn is part of the universe. There is a continuity of life through evolution. There is therefore a continuity of being. “The idea of evolution affects Christology because it assumes and implies continuity along with advance in creation. And it is this idea and fact of continuity, impressed on us from all quarters, that is now determining what men are able to believe concerning Divine action in every sphere. The evidence for continuity everywhere is overwhelming. The implicit or explicit recognition of it among educated people, and a general sense of it, are becoming universal and axiomatic…. What a chain it is! Begin anywhere: with your own intelligence as you read, or mine as I write. First go down the chain. Intelligence is not confined to those who can read and write. It is shared by every human being. It is shared by animals. It is not limited to animals. Plants cannot be denied a share of it. It is found in roots and leaves and flowers. Go down farther still; and farther. You cannot find the end of the chain. And then go up…. To us intelligence, mind, spirit, is now seen as one long continuous chain, of which we see neither beginning nor end. We are perhaps at least as far from the top of it as we are from the bottom.” This is, of course, a modern version of the ancient religion known as pantheism. It is certainly one reasonable extension of Darwinism. It is another reason why a generation of committed evolutionists in the late 1960’s could turn to pantheism and then to forms of animism. The best-selling book, The Secret Life of Plants (1974), is essentially a defense of the animist cosmology, where sprites and personal “forces” inhabit plants and special regions of the earth.
This doctrine of the continuity of being was basic to ancient paganism, most notably in Egypt’s theology of the divine Pharaoh and his divine State. It is the oldest heresy of all, tempting man “to be as god” (Gen. 3:5).
Rev. Wilson was being too modest. Man is not only closer to the top of the chain than to the bottom, he actually is the top. Dobzhansky has made this point inescapably clear. He knows how erroneous the textbook account is; he knows that Darwin elevated mankind by making him the product of ape-like beings, which in turn were products of impersonal random forces governed only by the law of natural selection. He writes: “It has become almost a commonplace that Darwin’s discovery of biological evolution completed the downgrading and estrangement of man begun by Copernicus and Galileo. I can scarcely imagine a judgment more mistaken. Perhaps the central point to be argued in this book is that the opposite is true. Evolution is a source of hope for man. To be sure, modern evolution has not restored the earth to the position of the center of the universe. However, while the universe is surely not geocentric, it may conceivably be anthropocentric. Man, this mysterious product of the world’s evolution, may also be its protagonist, and eventually its pilot. In any case, the world is not fixed, not finished, and not unchangeable. Everything in it is engaged in evolutionary flow and development.” A changing, evolving world is at last free from the providence of God. “Since the world is evolving it may in time become different from what it is. And if so, man may help to channel the changes in a direction which he deems desirable and good…. In particular, it is not true that human nature does not change; this ‘nature’ is not a status but a process. The potentialities of man’s development are far from exhausted, either biologically or culturally. Man must develop as the bearer of spirit and of ultimate concern. Together with Nietzsche we must say: ‘Man is something that must be overcome.’ ” Man, in short, must transcend himself. He must evolve into the pilot of the universe. He can do this because he alone is fully self-conscious, fully self-aware. “Self-awareness is, then, one of the fundamental, possibly the most fundamental, characteristic of the human species. This characteristic is an evolutionary novelty…. The evolutionary adaptive significance of self-awareness lies in that it serves to organize and to integrate man’s physical and mental capacities by means of which man controls his environment.”
Understandably, Dobzhansky despises Protestant fundamentalism. Above all, he must reject the idea of creationism. To accept such a creed would be to knock man from his pedestal, to drag him away from the pilot’s wheel. In fact, scholarly fundamentalists enrage him. “There are still many people who are happy and comfortable adhering to fundamentalist creeds. This should cause no surprise, since a large majority of these believers are as unfamiliar with scientific findings as were people who lived centuries ago. The really extraordinary phenomenon is the continued existence of a small minority of scientifically educated fundamentalists who know that their beliefs are in utter, flagrant, glaring contradiction with firmly established scientific findings…. Discussions and debates with such persons is [sic] a waste of time; I suspect that they are unhappy people, envious of those who are helped to hold similar views by plain ignorance.”
What is the heart of the evolutionist’s religion? Dobzhansky makes himself perfectly clear: “One can study facts without bothering to inquire about their meaning. But there is one stupendous fact with which people were confronted at all stages of their factual enlightenment, the meaning of which they have ceaselessly tried to dis- cover. This fact is Man.” This is the link among all of man’s religions, he says. Man with a capital “M” is the heart of religion; and on these terms, evolutionism must certainly be the humanistic world’s foremost religion. It is not surprising, then, that Dobzhansky’s book was published as one of a series, edited by Ruth Nanda Anshen: “Perspectives in Humanism.”
What must be grasped from the very beginning is that evolutionism’s cosmology involves an intellectual sleight-of-hand operation. It appears initially to denigrate man’s position in a universe of infinite (or almost infinite) space and time, only subsequently to place man on the pinnacle of this non-created realm. Man becomes content to be a child of the meaningless slime, in order that he might claim his rightful sovereignty in the place once occupied by God. By default – the disappearance of God the Creator – man achieves his evolving divinity.
—<Quote ends>—
[“Man with a capital M is the heart of religion.”
Man replaces God, and hell replaces heaven.
Certainly for the masses. But, in time, for our Compassionate Elites as well.]
—<Quote begins>—
The secular scientist really does not want randomness all the time. He wants predictable randomness. He wants the operation of the law of large numbers. He wants the laws of probability. He wants sufficient order to give him power, but he usually wants sufficient randomness to preserve him from the power of others, especially God.
—<Quote ends>—
[What is Darwinism?
It is a dream of power without accountability.]
—<Quote begins>—
Here is the heart of the argument concerning teleology. Any trace of teleology must be scrapped by secular science. The secular scientists have defined science to exclude all forms of final, teleological causation. Darwin, however confused he may have been, or however attracted to the teleological arguments of William Graham he may have become at the end of his life, made it plain in the final edition of Origin ofSpecies that he could not accept any trace of God-ordained benefits in the processes of nature: “The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed. Such doctrines, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
—<Quote ends>—
[Darwin would not like the trend of modern scientific discoveries. Not in the slightest.]
—<Quote begins>—
George Gaylord Simpson calls teleology “the higher superstition”Another subtler and even more deeply warping concept of the higher superstition was that the world was created for man. Other organisms had no separate purpose in the scheme of creation. Whether noxious or useful, they were to be seriously considered only in their relationship to the supreme creation, the image of God.” Simpson is adamant: “There is no fact in the history of life that requires a postulate of purpose external to the organisms themselves.” This is clearly a statement of religious faith.
—<Quote ends>—
[Darwinism isn’t about logic, or reason, or the facts, or the evidence. That is increasingly obvious, with the politicalization of science.
After all, if there is no such thing as Objective Truth — a concept that requires God, the observer standing outside of Creation, to determine — then there are only Subjective Truths.
And who gets to determine what is subjectively true?
The Right Sort of Men, with the most social/legal/military/economic/political power.
Obviously.
Only some Christian, with his faith in an invisible God the Right Sort can’t see, or feel, or touch, would argue otherwise.
My response?
Science originated in Christian soil. It withers in secularist soil.
And after the dead, sterile, delusional secularist dust is blown away, science will again flourish in renewed and refreshed Christian soil.
Just with far fewer elitist, power-seeking, self-certifying guilds – supernaturalistic or naturalistic – to interfere with the rise and growth of the truth, scientific or otherwise.
God is going to get what He wants.
Regardless of the will of Powerful Men.]
—<Quote begins>—
The depersonalization of nature was originally asserted in terms of a philosophy which proclaimed nature’s autonomy; this autonomy for nature no longer will be permitted. Once man achieves his freedom from undesigned nature by means of his knowledge of nature’s laws) he can then assert his autonomous sovereignty over nature (including) of course) other men). There are no conscious ends in the universe that can overcome the conscious purpose of the planning elite. There is no court of higher appeal. R. J. Rushdoony has summarized this new cosmology very well: “Humanistic law, moreover, is inescapably totalitarian law. Humanism, as a logical development of evolutionary theory, holds fundamentally to a concept of an evolving universe. This is held to be an ‘open universe,’ whereas Biblical Christianity, because of its faith in the triune God and His eternal decree, is said to be a faith in a ‘closed universe.’ This terminology not only intends to prejudice the case; it reverses reality. The universe of evolutionism and humanism is a closed universe. There is no law, no appeal, no higher order, beyond and above the universe. Instead of an open window upwards, there is a closed cosmos. There is thus no ultimate law and decree beyond man and the universe. Man’s law is therefore beyond criticism except by man…. In practice, this means that the positive law of the state is absolute law. The state is the most powerful and most highly organized expression of humanistic man, and the state is the form and expression of humanistic law. Because there is no higher law of God as judge over the universe, over every human order, the law of the state is a closed system of law. There is no appeal beyond it. Man has no ‘right,’ no realm of justice, no source of law beyond the state, to which man can appeal against the state. Humanism therefore imprisons man within the closed world of the state and the closed universe of the evolutionary scheme.”
—<Quote ends>—
[Exalting the Will of Powerful Men, as expressed by their control of the State and its organs — academia, the mass media, the armed police and military, the courts — is the sole and singular purpose of atheism in general, and Darwinism in particular.
Some people love death so.
But their way is not the Christian way.]
—<Quote begins>—
Modern historians have often been remiss, lazy, or deliberately misleading in their unwillingness to comment on another aspect of the conflict between medieval Roman Catholic orthodox science and the Renaissance discoveries. Renaissance speculation was not the product of a group of armchair college professors. It was deeply involved in magic, demonism, and the occult arts. C. S. Lewis is quite correct when he observes that it was not the Middle Ages that encouraged grotesque superstitions; it was the “rational” Renaissance. These men were searching for power, like Faustus, not truth for its own sake. For example, it is generally today accepted that the first late-medieval or early modern figure to advance the old Greek concept, of an infinite universe was Giordano Bruno. Yet it was Bruno’s reputation, well-deserved, as a magician, a Kabbalist, and an astrologer, that brought him to his disastrous end. It was not simply that Copernicus, in the name of mathematical precision, placed the sun at the center of the universe. Ptolemy’s system was as accurate in its predictions as Copernicus’ system (for Copernicus erroneously favored circular planet orbits instead of ellipses). Copernicus was involved in a neoplatonic, Pythagorean revival against the Aristotelian universe of the late-medieval period. Mathematics governs everything, this tradition teaches, contrary to Aristotle’s teachings. It was also a deeply mystical and magical tradition. Kepler, the mathematical genius who discovered that planetoid motion is elliptical, was a sun-worshipper and an astrologer. The leaders of the institutional church understandably were disturbed by these theologically and cosmologically heretical individuals.
The debate over whether or not the universe is infinite is still with us today. Einstein’s curved (in relation to what?) and finite universe is obviously not in harmony with the absolute space of Newton’s cosmology. Prior to the sixteenth century, however, European scholars had not raised the question. Aristotle’s rejection of the idea was considered final. The problem is exceedingly intricate, as anyone understands who has attempted to struggle through Alexander Koynes book, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (1957). Copernicus and Kepler rejected the idea, although their speculations vastly expanded men’s vision of the creation. Galileo, whose telescopes shattered the transluscent spheres as comets never had, was content to affirm an indeterminate universe. Descartes, who above all other men of his era, believed in a totally mathematical universe, and whose vision in this regard was crucial for the development of modern science, said that space is indefinite. He was always cautious on theological or semi-theological topics. The limit, he thought, may well be in our minds; we should therefore avoid such disputes. In fact, Descartes’ refusal to postulate limits (due to men’s inability to conceive such limits) really served as an assertion of an infinite space. Descartes’ god was simply pure mind, having nothing in common with the material world.
—<Quote ends>—
[To re-quote: “Modern historians have often been remiss, lazy, or deliberately misleading in their unwillingness to comment on another aspect of the conflict between medieval Roman Catholic orthodox science and the Renaissance discoveries. Renaissance speculation was not the product of a group of armchair college professors. It was deeply involved in magic, demonism, and the occult arts. C. S. Lewis is quite correct when he observes that it was not the Middle Ages that encouraged grotesque superstitions; it was the “rational” Renaissance. These men were searching for power, like Faustus, not truth for its own sake.”
I fully expect the solid majority of atheistic professors to insist on the ignorant Medieval Ages and the sophisticated, rational Renaissance for as long as the academic guild exists.
That is, until the end of the university system.
After all, as the universities inevitably and naturally becomes a Progressively-enforced zone of strictly Establishment thinking — “free of free speech, free of free thought” — their connection to reality will be stretched, twisted, strained, and inevitably snapped and shattered.
The universities do not exist to better understand the universe.
The universities exist to provide State certification
for State-controlled guilds, bureaucrats, and leadership.
Nothing more.
As the State withers and rots and is discredited, so does the universities.
I strongly recommend that the future Christian States refuse to re-create the university system of government-certified experts and pastors.
With the possible exception of the military officer corps.
Academia is innately Statist and centralizing. It’s about power and hierarchy and control and obedience.
(And easy access to trusting, obedient young men, as the Greeks would delightfully point out.)
The Progressives and their hatred of free thought, free speech and free inquiry are merely bring the academy to its natural and inevitable end point.
Not incidentally, now would be a GREAT time for every Christian church to scrap the seminary, by the way, and reinstate the Biblically-authorized apprenticeship method.]
Acrosss the Stars 